4.7 Article

Impaired Amino Acid and TCA Metabolism and Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy Progression in Type 1 Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES
卷 68, 期 10, 页码 2035-2044

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db19-0145

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health (NIH) [P30DK081943, DK089503, DK082841, DK097153, K08HL130944, 1R01HL102334-01]
  2. American Diabetes Association [1-14-MN-02]
  3. NIH [DK097153]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While diabetes is characterized by hyperglycemia, nutrient metabolic pathways like amino acid and tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle are also profoundly perturbed. As glycemic control alone does not prevent complications, we hypothesized that these metabolic disruptions are responsible for the development and progression of diabetic cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN). We performed standardized cardiovascular autonomic reflex tests and targeted fasting plasma metabolomic analysis of amino acids and TCA cycle intermediates in subjects with type 1 diabetes and healthy control subjects followed for 3 years. Forty-seven participants with type 1 diabetes (60% female and mean +/- SD age 35 +/- 13 years, diabetes duration 13 +/- 7 years, and HbA(1c) 7.9 +/- 1.2%) had lower fumarate levels and higher threonine, serine, proline, asparagine, aspartic acid, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and histidine levels compared with 10 age-matched healthy control subjects. Higher baseline fumarate levels and lower baseline amino acid levels-asparagine and glutamine-correlate with CAN (lower baseline SD of normal R-R interval [SDNN]). Baseline glutamine and ornithine levels also associated with the progression of CAN (lower SDNN at 3 years) and change in SDNN, respectively, after adjustment for baseline HbA(1c), blood glucose, BMI, cholesterol, urine microalbumin-to- creatinine ratio, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and years of diabetes. Therefore, significant changes in the anaplerotic flux into the TCA cycle could be the critical defect underlying CAN progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据